Ex Parte Chen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

15197799 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/197,799 06/30/2016
52981 7590 12/19/2018
LEONGC. LEI
PMB # 1008
1839 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94598
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chi-Wen Chen
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CFPA8763-21295 1150
EXAMINER
HEWITT, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
twpatent@ms9.hinet.net
aj303@alfredjason.com.tw
info@macauip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHI-WEN CHEN
Appeal 2018-003 686
Application 15/197,799
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2018-003686
Application 15/197, 799
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention "relates generally to a fitting structure for
supply of gas, and more particularly to one that is applied to a hose or plastic
pipe of an air compressor for supply of air." (Spec., 1, 11. 3-5.)
Sole Independent Claim on Appeal
[ 1.] A fitting structure for supply of gas, which is adapted to
be mounted to an air outlet of an air compressor to receive air
discharged from the air compressor, the fitting structure
compnsmg:
a fitting, which has an end forming a first coupling opening
and an opposite end forming a second coupling opening, the
first coupling opening being connectable with the air outlet of
the air compressor, the second coupling opening being
connectable with an air supply tube by having an end of the air
supply tube fit over and coupled to the second coupling end of
the fitting; and
a thermal insulation tube, which is mounted to the fitting,
the thermal insulation tube having an end forming a first end
part and an opposite end forming a second end part, the first
end part being fixed inside the second coupling opening of the
fitting, the second end part being arranged to extend outside the
second coupling opening such that a portion of the thermal
insulation tube that extends outside the second coupling
opening is received in interior of the air supply tube and has a
distal tip of the second end part located distant from the second
coupling end of the fitting;
wherein the air supply tube is directly coupled to the second
coupling end of the fitting with an end thereof fit over the
second coupling end, the thermal insulation tube extends from
the second coupling end of the fitting to be received in the
interior of the air supply tube, in a manner of being spaced
radially from the air supply tube, to have the distal tip thereof
located distant from the second coupling end of the fitting, and
the fitting is adapted to receive the air discharged from the air
pump and conducts the air through the thermal insulation tube
to have the air fed from the distal tip of the second end part of
2
Appeal 2018-003686
Application 15/197, 799
the thermal insulation tube into the air supply tube at a location
distant from the second coupling end of the fitting and the end
of the air supply tube fit over the second coupling end of the
fitting.
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 4--6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Cole. 1 (Final Action 4.)
II. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Cole. (Final Action 7 .)
III. The Examiner rejects claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ), as
indefinite. (Final Action 2.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "[a] fitting structure" which is "adapted to
be mounted to an air outlet of an air compressor to receive air discharged
from the air compressor." (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Re} ections I and II
Independent claim 1 requires the fitting structure to comprise "an air
supply tube," "a fitting," and "a thermal insulation tube." (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) Independent claim 1 further requires the fitting to be "adapted
to receive the air discharged from the air pump and conducts the air through
the thermal insulation tube to have the air fed from [a] distal tip of [a] second
end part of the thermal insulation tube into the air supply tube." (Id.) Thus,
independent claim 1 requires a structure adapted to feed air from a thermal
insulation tube into an air supply tube.
1 US 4,094,536, issued June 13, 1978. Our quotations to this patent omit the
bolding of reference numerals.
3
Appeal 2018-003686
Application 15/197, 799
The Examiner determines that Cole discloses "a fitting structure for a
supply of gas" (gas riser 10) comprising "an air supply tube" (steel pipe 14
and line shield nut 18), "a fitting" (adapter coupling nut 20), and "a thermal
insulation tube" (fiberglass tube 32) as required by independent claim 1.
(Final Action 4; see also Answer 4.) As for Cole's steel pipe 14 and line
shield nut 18 forming the claimed "air supply line," the Examiner finds that
"Cole's tube (18/14 ), as it is a tube, can most certainly be used to supply in
air in one environment or another." (Answer 10-11.) As for the supply of
air through the thermal insulation tube into the air supply tube, the Examiner
finds that Cole's disclosed structure has "the ability" to feed air from a distal
tip of its fiberglass tube 32 into the "air supply tube" supposedly formed by
steel pipe 14 and line shield nut 18. (Final Action 5.)
The Appellant argues that independent claim 1 "requires air be
supplied through the thermal insulation tube into the air supply tube," and
Cole's gas riser 10 "does not meet such a requirement." (Appeal Br. 14.,
emphasis omitted.)
According to the Appellant, Cole's fiberglass tube 32 "has an end
terminating at a location close to the part designated by 38," but this end is
"joined to a polyethylene tubing 12." (Appeal Br. 13.) The Appellant also
asserts that "the joined structure of the fiberglass tube 32 and the
polyethylene tubing 12 provides, or defines in the interior space thereof, a
passageway for air or fluid to flow therethrough." (Id.) The Appellant
further contends that Cole's Figure 1 shows that "the steel pipe 14
terminates at a pipe cap 16" and, therefore, "the steel pipe 14 is not an air
supply tube at all, for no air or fluid could be supplied through the both-end-
sealed pipe 14." (Id. at 13-14, emphasis omitted.)
4
Appeal 2018-003686
Application 15/197, 799
We are persuaded by the Appellant's position because it is supported
by Cole's Figure 1, an annotated version of which is provided below.
t,4
l) ,~SS?t:r. "''~·'r".t ·::t ·; il; {.t~ ..... t,~\,.,'.r')'lo.-11_,) .... •.-.• -
defined bv -·
fiberglas~ tube 32 and polyethylene tubing 12
annular space 14 18
defined hv ..
steel pipe 14 and line shield nut 18
Fig, I
Figure 1 "illustrates, in partial cross-section, one overall embodiment of
[Cole's] invention." (Cole, col. 2, 11. 11-12.) As annotated above, fiberglass
tube 32 and polyethylene tubing 12 define a central fluid passageway 32/12;
and steel pipe 14 and line shield nut 18 define an annular space 14/18 around
5
Appeal 2018-003686
Application 15/197, 799
this passageway 32/12. Figure 1 shows that fluid conducted through Cole's
fiberglass tube 32 (i.e., through the passageway 32/12) is completely sealed
from, and does not communicate with, the annular space 14/ 18 defined by
Cole's steel pipe 14 and line shield nut 18.2
Consequently, in Cole's gas riser 10, no fluid conducted through
fiberglass tube 32 can be fed (from its distal tip or otherwise) into the
annular space 14/18 defined by steel pipe 14 and line shield nut 18. As such,
the Examiner's finding, that Cole's disclosed structure has "the ability" to
feed air from a distal tip of its fiberglass tube 32 into the "air supply tube"
supposedly formed by steel pipe 14 and line shield nut 18 (Final Action 5),
is not supported sufficiently by the record.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2-6 depending therefrom, as anticipated by or obvious
over Cole. 3
2 This non-communication of fluid between passageway 32/12 and annular
space 14/18 is verified by Cole's written description of the gas riser 10
shown in Figure 1. Cole species that, at the lower end of steel pipe 14,
annular space 14/18 is sealed "by a pipe cap 16." (Cole, col. 3, 11. 56-57.)
At the upper end of steel pipe 14, annular space 14/18 is sealed from the
fluid passageway 32/12 by an "internal shoulder 30" of line shield nut 18
that seals against a "circumferential ridge 26" of the fiberglass tube 32. (Id.
at col. 2, 11. 40-43.) As for lower end of fiberglass tube 32, it is joined to the
upper end of polyethylene tubing 12 "by means of an adaptor coupling 38."
(Id. at col. 2, 11. 29-34; see also Figs. 3-8.). And it is an express purpose of
Cole's invention to provide "a mechanical and pressure seal connection"
between the ends of fiberglass tube 32 and polyethylene tubing 12 so as to
form a "composite tubing." (Id. at col. 1, 11. 27-34.)
3 The Examiner's further findings and determinations with respect to the
dependent claims do not compensate for the shortcomings of the rejection of
independent claim 1. (See Final Action 5-7.)
6
Appeal 2018-003686
Application 15/197, 799
Re} ection III
As indicated above, independent claim 1 recites limitations involving
a "distal tip." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) According to the Examiner, "it is
unclear" what component this distal tip belongs to. (Final Action 3.) But
we agree with the Appellant (see Appeal Br. 16-17), that one of ordinary
skill in the art, upon reading the Specification, would understand that the
recited distal tip is the distal tip of the thermal insulation tube. (See, e.g.,
Spec. 6, 11. 1-9, 10, 11. 5-8; Figs. 2, 5).
Independent claim 1 also recites limitations involving something
"being spaced radially from the air supply tube." (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
According to the Examiner, "it is unclear" what component is spaced
radially from the air supply tube. (Final Action 3.) But we agree with the
Appellant (see Appeal Br. 17) that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon
reading the Specification, would understand that it is the thermal insulation
tube, when situated within the interior defined by the air supply tube, that is
spaced radially inward from the outer perimeter of this interior space. (See,
e.g., Spec. 11, 11. 10-17; Figs. 2, 5.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2---6 depending therefrom, as indefinite.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-6.
REVERSED
7